You're viewing part of a thread.
Then we'll have to agree to disagree. It doesn't matter how many levels of abstraction or semantics you hide it behind, you're gaining from something made by another person without returning that gain (whether financially or otherwise) to that person.
You're welcome to disagree with any standardized definition you like. Seems like a pretty unwise thing to do, but that's your prerogative.
Someone else posted the definition of stealing in this thread elsewhere. If I gain something from someone without giving them what they've demanded in return, it's stealing.
To steal something, you must actually take something away from someone, such that they do not have that thing anymore.
That's not how piracy works.
No, you do not. If you hire someone to make you a website/video/picture and then don't pay them after they've created it, you're stealing from them. You can argue the semantics of that all day long and say that it's a different term, I don't care. You're stealing from someone when you gain something from their work without compensating them (if they're asking to be compensated in exchange for that work).
If you hire someone to make you a website/video/picture and then don't pay them after they've created it, you're stealing from them.
Nope, you've potentially violated a contract, but you haven't stolen anything.
By your definition, if I lend my friend a DVD movie and they watch it, they've now stolen that movie.
More semantics. This is exhausting dealing with your dishonesty. You've stolen the product that they created for you because you haven't paid them for it. Sure, it would be a violation of a contract too but I think most reasonable people would agree that you stole the website/video/picture.
And no... by my definition, nothing is stolen in your example because you lent your friend the movie. You gave them permission to have it on a temporary basis. If they never return it to you, then they've stolen it. Your examples are terrible.
More semantics. This is exhausting dealing with your dishonesty.
Fuck off with that. I'm being no more dishonest than you. No need for bullshit accusations.
And no... by my definition, nothing is stolen in your example because you lent your friend the movie. You gave them permission to have it on a temporary basis. If they never return it to you, then they've stolen it. Your examples are terrible.
"You're stealing from someone when you gain something from their work without compensating them (if they're asking to be compensated in exchange for that work)."
The friend has gained something from that work without compensating the creator, who has explicitly asked for it. They haven't stolen from me, but they've stolen from the creator, according to you.
I'm being no more dishonest than you.
Yes, you are. You're pretending that tangible and intangible goods are the same. I've already given several examples of why that's not the case and yet you keep returning to that argument. Either you're being dishonest or you genuinely do not understand the distinction. Either way, the analogies and examples you're giving do not apply to the situation I'm arguing.
They haven't stolen from me, but they've stolen from the creator, according to you.
This is an example of you being dishonest. Creators who make physical, tangible goods are not affected the same way that creators of intangible works are. This is not an argument against my point and has the same fundamental flaw as your previous examples.
I've made several arguments and you've returned back to yours. Should I call you dishonest? Or should I recognize that that's what a debate is?
Creators who make physical, tangible goods are not affected the same way that creators of intangible works are.
You haven't demonstrated that at all. How is my friend borrowing my DVD copy of a movie and watching it any different from them downloading a torrent of that movie and watching it, as far as it impacts the creator?
I've made several arguments
You've made several arguments that don't address the point I made and then continued to make those same arguments after I already pointed out that they weren't relevant because you're ignoring fundamental differences. I'm not dishonest for sticking to the meat of my argument rather than arguing your fallacious examples.
You haven't demonstrated that at all. How is my friend borrowing my DVD copy of a movie and watching it any different from them downloading a torrent of that movie and watching it, as far as it impacts the creator?
Yes, I have. For you to even say that is either dishonest or ignorant of what I've said in direct reply to those claims.
Physical, tangible items have limitations on their scarcity. Intangible, non-physical items do not. Creators of physical goods make them with those limitations and that scarcity in mind. In fact, some physical items become more valuable simply because of their scarcity. You cannot buy a "used" intangible item or "lend" (not borrow) your friend an intangible item. As such, your entire argument of a DVD being somehow comparable is not relevant or valid.